from the but-of-course dept

We've pointed out plenty of times in the past, that any time there's a database of info out there, the data is almost certain to be abused. The latest example? Employees at Verizon Wireless improperly accessed Barack Obama's phone records to see who he was calling and who was calling him. The access was just for his regular phone used for voice communications -- not his Blackberry. Also, the employees had no access to his voicemail or anything -- just calling records. At least Verizon Wireless came out and admitted this, rather than covering it up, but it's yet another reminder, that data will be abused.

And, of course, Obama isn't the only one facing such an issue. Reader lavi d writes in to point out that eighteen background checks were conducted in Ohio by gov't employees on Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber. Eight of those background checks were done for no legitimate reason, including one at the request of the director of Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services (who has now been suspended). We had mentioned three such cases earlier, but even more have since come to light.

from the and-so-it-goes dept

We have pointed out in the past that people need to realize that any government database of info will be abused. It's almost impossible for it not to be abused. People use it to look up info on ex-girlfriends or friends or relatives. The data is there, and if someone has access to it, it's simply too tempting not to look up some info, no matter what "safety precautions" are in place.

Over on Slashdot there's yet another example of this happening, as apparently three separate people accessed various databases to look up info on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as "Joe the Plumber," right after the third Presidential debate, in which Joe was a central part of the discussion. It's not entirely clear what the nature of those database lookups were, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was just individuals who knew they had access to the government databases, and were just curious and couldn't resist looking. But, what's more interesting is that no one caught this database snooping until the Columbus Dispatch asked for log information.

from the good-advice dept

Earlier this year, Sun scooped up MySQL for a cool $1 billion. However, while Sun has been somewhat friendly towards open source software, there were plenty of concerns about what the company planned to do with MySQL. Some of those fears are now being realized. After first disappearing some of MySQL's public statements on the evilness of software patents, Sun caused quite a bit of controversy with a plan to close source certain new features in an attempt to push people to upgrade to a premium, paid version of the software. While that's certainly one strategy, it could be a dangerous one, ticking off many MySQL users who will go searching for alternatives.

So, what could Sun do with MySQL to help build a bigger and better business that doesn't involve locking up any software? The blog Milking The Gnu has a very interesting suggestion that makes a lot of sense (and certainly fits in directly with the economics we discuss around here). The idea is not to worry about locking up the software, but to turn MySQL into a cloud computing web-platform. The reasoning makes a tremendous amount of sense (much more than Sun's current strategy). Basically, on the low end, you have folks who will never pay for a premium version of MySQL anyway. At the high end, most of those companies (if pushed) will probably lean towards Oracle or IBM. But in the middle-tier there's a real opportunity -- not to be a database software company, but to build that all important web platform we've been discussing.

Already, Amazon and Google are trying to build that platform, with Amazon seeing a fair bit of success (and Google just starting). Sun has promoted the concept of cloud computing for years, so why not flip things around and make MySQL the database part of a cloud computing offering. With so many folks already comfortable with MySQL, it will be much easier for many of them to embrace this offering, rather than having to figure out the details of Amazon's SimpleDB or Google's AppEngine/BigTable setup. Then, the more people you get to adopt the free open source version of MySQL, the more likely they are to make use of Sun's cloud computing offering over the alternatives. And, then, Sun can charge for the use of cloud computing resources (scarce resources) while knowing that the infinite nature of MySQL promotes that scarce good. Given that Sun's been such a promoter of cloud computing for so long, you would think this was a no-brainer. But it's latest actions with MySQL suggest it may be going in a different direction, and that's unfortunate. Update: Marten Mickos of MySQL/Sun responds in the comments, and Glyn Moody points us to an interview he recently conducted with Mickos suggesting that Mickos is thinking along similar lines about cloud computing.

from the faux-form-entries dept

For years, people have talked about the "deep web" or "dark web" of information that's hidden from the public (and search engines), sometimes behind registration or paywalls, but more often behind specific forms. That is, there's a lot of information that's dynamically generated on the fly, based on how someone fills out a form. For a search engine, that's problematic, as it doesn't get to see any of that information and inform people that it's there (even if it's "public" info). However, it looks like Google is attacking this problem by setting up its spiders to actually enter information into public forms to try to dig a layer or two deeper. The search engine is trying to be quite careful on this, as obviously it might make people question whether a search engine should be entering "fake" data into a form to dig deeper into it. It appears that Google is only doing this on specific sites -- and is paying attention to all robots.txt type info that wards off its spider. As for the more interesting question of what Google is entering into forms, apparently it tries to guess reasonable info from the context of the site. Who knows how well this actually works? But it's an interesting experiment. However, how long will it be until someone freaks out when they realize some info they thought was "private" or hidden from search engines is made public by this process?

from the databases-of-confidential-info-get-abused,-period dept

Last month, we wrote that whenever a government entity puts together a large database of private, confidential data, it will get abused. In all honesty, we never should have limited that to just the "government." News reports are coming out about a case in Wisconsin where apparently employees at the state's largest energy company regularly snooped through private records to find out all sorts of information on all different kinds of people. Among the information accessed by employees: "credit and banking information, payment histories, address and phone numbers, and Social Security numbers." And, for what purposes? "Examples included a woman that often perused information on an ex-boyfriend, a woman who searched for the address of her child's father, and a part-time landlord who investigated prospective tenants. Another worker leaked information on a mayoral candidate's habit of paying heating bills late, possibly affecting the election." Once again, at this point, you probably should just assume that you have no privacy whatsoever -- but you should be wary any time someone tells you that the database they've put together is somehow secure and safe from privacy violations.

from the you-have-no-privacy dept

For years, the government has pushed repeatedly to build bigger and more comprehensive databases of information around citizens. There are certainly justifications that can be made for such databases -- so long as people weigh those justifications against the fact that the databases will absolutely be abused. We recently wrote about the case where a government employee used a Homeland Security computer system to track an ex-girlfriend. The latest story is that a corrupt customs agent was selling access to federal databases. While it's good that he was caught, he wasn't caught due to any protection mechanisms put in place, but because a drug dealer who had been paying the customs agent for access to the database, was stopped for a traffic violation, and the police officer noticed the business card for the customs agent. The police then followed up to try to figure out why the guy had the agent's card, leading to the story unfolding. Hopefully, since then, more stringent protections have been put in place, but it seems likely that there are still plenty of questionable uses of these sorts of databases.